Skiluros

This is not about a “moral high ground” or some deep commitment to utilitarianism (which you somehow turned into a bizarre rant about electing Hitler).

I am talking about a practical, real life evaluation. Of course many people vote based on emotional reasons, but that doesn’t mean tactical voting is not extremely common (perhaps even a majority of voters).

And the fact remains that even people who have a strong emotional motivation can still be willing to make tactical choices. It’s not all black and white like you describe.

I never said anything about validity. Let me quote myself:

This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You’re not happy with that, don’t vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It’s as simple as that.

I didn’t mean to imply all people treat their vote as an endorsement. That’s my mistake, I wasn’t clear. I was saying that a lot of people vote tactically and do not treat their vote as an endorsement.

You can have a different posture, but the fact remains that people are complex and they can (and should) switch between committed voting and tactical depending on the situation. If you don’t take the tactical approach, then it is reasonable to hold one responsible not taking part in the voting process.

Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.

I was refering to your claim that tactical/pragmatic voting is somehow related to a deep philosophical commitment to utilitarianism which in turns is how you get Hitler. People don’t vote tactically out of some deep commitment to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism of course has its own set of problems, the stuff about Hitler in context of tactical voting is a ridiculous stretch; very condescending as well.

I don’t deny the possibility of US turning into a essentially a non-democratic oligarch state. If anything, research suggests authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means, tend to solidify their rule in their second term if there is no pushback from society. So in a sense I agree with you.

Where I don’t agree with you are your justifications for not voting. As I said originally, I think the only fair reasoning is if there is nationwide protest to highlight the illegitimacy of an election/regime. Otherwise, there is no point in not voting.

No, I am basing this on real life experience. I.e. How I and many people vote and voted in my country, as well as other European countries that I follow.

This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You’re not happy with that, don’t vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It’s as simple as that.

I don’t know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.

I can’t speak for the nuances w.r.t Harris, Trump and US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine.

I can with full confidence say that not voting is definitely not going to achieve anything. The only justified case would be an attempt to highlight the illegitimacy of the voting process if there are no options at all. It’s relatively common for people to vote tactically on a consistent basis, although of course it’s understandable when people lose motivation to vote when they feel there are no good options.

I just didn’t think they would do it formally (de jure).

Wow, they are really going to do it, aren’t they?

I am aware of that. And I am also aware of the dynamics of their GDP carbon intensity.

Do you really think if India and China were given $1 trillion a year each they would suddenly stop their expansion of coal power generation or even use a majority of that sum to combat climate change?

I don’t have any issues with helping countries combating climate change (financially or otherwise), I do have issues with the “global south” framing.

Is China part of the global south? India?

They are both building out a massive amount of coal powered plants and will continue doing so because it suits their interests. You think giving India and China $1 trillion a year each will change this dynamic?

I can understand specific bi-lateral initiates (or even structured multi-lateral ones). But the whole “global south” discussion is extremely simplistic.

I think it’s worth taking a more nuanced view on the “global south” vs. “global north” discussion. A lot of the leadership of the “global south” doesn’t believe in climate change and they have no interest in any kind of good faith actions on this issue. Why would you give them money with such an attitude?

Removed by mod

I am biased, but I wouldn’t count out Ukraine just yet.

Removed by mod

Signing off on russians demands in not a plan.

While this is true, with the US, their geopolitical ambitions have sometimes aligned with positive developments (Germany, Japan, the Baltic nations and Poland in relatively more recent times). The same cannot be said for say Russia or China.

While this is true, I wouldn’t discount the disastrous “escalation management” approach pursued by Biden’s administration.

I understand the logic in a superficial sense, but it at least partially stems from ignorance about how russians think and how to deal with them. In a geo-political sense, they are not capable of good faith actions and they only respect brute force and strength. You would be challenged to find a single noteable example of genuine good faith actions from the russians in all of their history.

We will almost certainly see more bad news in context of global democracy and rise authoritarianism/plutocracy. Unfortunately, it seems that the US is entering a permanent oligarch-fueled “bread and circuses” phase (Big Macs and iPhones for the modern equivalent?).

No real plan, submit to russian demands.